Okay I am new here I know but I want to see where this will lead. I know that there have been many tremendous and hard fought battles in Western history, but thtere are not many that can honestly be considered to be a harbinger of future global developments. Having said that and keeping in mind the future GLOBAL implications that it had, what would the world be like today if England had gotten sternly defeated at the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805 ?

Bill

25 Sep 03,, 03:59

Wow, it's hard to imagine a world where france is the sole superpower...

I've never put any thought into this, but sure would love to hear the opinions of those that have.

Officer of Engineers

25 Sep 03,, 05:22

As much as the Brits like to put the importance Trafalgar, the French was in no position to land an invading army, at least not one that could have conquer the British Isles.

And Napoleon met his doom at Moscow which was the cause of his exile.

Seriously, nothing. Wellington would have still met Napoleon at Waterloo.

Hawg166

25 Sep 03,, 14:07

Napollean didnt meet his doom at Waterloo untill many years later.
Britain had no allies save Portugal and Naples.
A decimated britain would have a caused a global shift in late ninetenth century imperialism in both africa and the Middle East.
RUSSIA would have gained access to the Mediteranian allowing and industrialization of its western territories especially St. Petersburg. What would this have done for its infracstructure and hence the outcome of WW I ? (chew on that)
What would the modern middle east look like had England not been in a position to maintane lines of communication with India thus allowing it to maintane the buffer zones in the middle east?
What would the face of THE UNITED STATES be like had England not kept American shores free of torment during its industrial revolution in the late 1800's ? Would we have been subject to European intervention in order to obtain much needed natural resources for their industrial revolution?

Those of you that dont add much weight t The Battle of Trafalgar had better rethink your views of napoleanic naval history and what gunboat diplomacy meant to the western world in the four centuries after the Armada.

Just a thought gentlemen . Just wanted to see what we could stir up. I may post this as a question on the Warthog territory Forum also.

Officer of Engineers

25 Sep 03,, 15:04

Would it?

Would a chastised Britain prevented the French-Russian clash? Would the French allowed Russian expansion? Would Napoleon have been satisfied and not march to Moscow? Did Trafalgar made extinct all French naval forces and their operations? Why would the opposite be true?

Hawg166

25 Sep 03,, 16:09

I dont thin it would have made them extinct at all. What I believe is that Russia would have taken advantage of the powere vacuum and gotten a foothold in the Med through the Black Sea. While French would continue to be the predominant power on the European main I believe Russia would have gobbled up a lot of the territories in the middle east and maybe India. I feel that if Russia had lost the noose around its neck for just a few years in the early nineteenth century, that it would have had a much greater chance of being a forward nation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, instead of the backward totally agrarian nation that it was.
I am not an academic, I am just curious as to what could have been.

Officer of Engineers

25 Sep 03,, 17:23

I'm trying to see what you see and I cannot. There were alot of pressures involved, including the internal powerplays of the Russian Empire itself. Alexander wasn't as ironfisted as his pre-successors. I really don't know if he could have gotten the money to build the fleet.

Also, could the British have rebuilt? I would have thought yes. Their armies were still intact and the French could not have knocked them out once and for all.

Added to this that both Napoleon and Alexander knew that war was coming. I seriously doubt that Alexander would have shifted his military towards a naval orientation when the much bigger land threat was just over the horizon.

Blackleaf

16 Oct 07,, 21:56

Napollean didnt meet his doom at Waterloo untill many years later.
Britain had no allies save Portugal and Naples.
A.

Absolute rubbish.

During the Napoleonic Wars the Allies (the good guys) consisted of Britain, Austria, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and Sweden.

The Axis Powers (the bad guys - after all they were trying to invade sovereign European nations such as Britain) consisted of France, the United States, Holland, Italy, Etruria, Naples, Duchy of Warsaw, the Rhine, Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia, Wurttemberg, and the kingdom of Denmark-Norway

Shamus

16 Oct 07,, 22:04

Blackleaf,resurrecting dead threads is also frowned upon.

Ironduke

16 Oct 07,, 23:17

There is only half a page of discussion topics in this forum. It's no worries if somebody posts on them.

Absolute rubbish.

During the Napoleonic Wars the Allies (the good guys) consisted of Britain, Austria, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and Sweden.

The Axis Powers (the bad guys - after all they were trying to invade sovereign European nations such as Britain) consisted of France, the United States, Holland, Italy, Etruria, Naples, Duchy of Warsaw, the Rhine, Bavaria, Saxony, Westphalia, Wurttemberg, and the kingdom of Denmark-Norway
These alliances shifted back and forth over the course of the Napoleonic Wars... one can't deny the huge impact Napoleon's march made. The adoption of civil law in many countries, the spurring of nationalistic feelings which led to the unification of Germany and Italy, and so on. I don't think one should look at the war and see good guys vs. bad guys.

Furthermore there was the Quasi-War between the US and France from 1798-1800, and the US was never allied or aligned with France during the War of 1812, which took place during the Napoleonic Wars but was separate from it.

Shamus

17 Oct 07,, 01:04

:Shamus crawls back into his cave properly chastised::redface:

tankie

17 Oct 07,, 07:41

Perish the thought . I would have prefered the Krauts any time to the frogs :mad:

Vich vud haf us all speakin like ziss ,

like when a Brit boat was going through the Keil canal and started to sink , the captain called for help saying

we are sinking, we are sinking .

The German coastguard came back saying ,,,Ja Ja ok , vot are you sinking about .:))

Feanor

17 Oct 07,, 09:07

There is absolutely no way russia would have gotten mediterranean access after a british defeat. A british defeat may have Napoleon trying to land in Britain, or maybe not. Hard to say if he would have been overconfident enough. However it would not give Russia the capability to knock out the Ottoman Empire to the point where Russia takes Constantinopole. Taking over India wasn't even a remote possibility. Russian control over Central Asia was fairly lax in the first place. Expanding even further from there, with poor lines of communication, and a very foreign (and hostile) population would have made that impossible. When combined with the fact that Napoleonic France was still on Russia's western border, it was not going to happen.

The only way Russia could have gotten access to the mediterranean, is if much earlier Oleg had taken Tsargrad and ensured a permanent slavic presence in the area, securing it forever as Russian.

Tarek Morgen

17 Oct 07,, 12:33

Perish the thought . I would have prefered the Krauts any time to the frogs :mad:

Vich vud haf us all speakin like ziss ,

like when a Brit boat was going through the Keil canal and started to sink , the captain called for help saying

we are sinking, we are sinking .

The German coastguard came back saying ,,,Ja Ja ok , vot are you sinking about .:))

Unless you were from one of those countries, such as Britain, which Napoleon was trying to invade.

If Napoleon tried to invade the United States you'd see him as the bad guy, too.

Napoleon, in my view, was just the 19th Century equivalent of Hitler and his allies (such as the US) were the 19th Century equivalent of Italy in WW2.

Isn't it ironic that just a couple of decades after the US fought the British for their freedom that they were allied to a country that was trying to invade its neighbours?

Right... you are very new here.... my advise is to think before you post here..... so far most of your post have been a load of drivle.
Comparing Napolean to Hitler...either you have no idea what your talking about, or too blinded by idiotic patriotism guided by wrong information.

Napolean was one of the Greatest Stratergist of our times, changed and inveted Military tactics, dared to do the unthinkable in his time, showed courage and resolve, took pride in his troops, knew how to work them and how to get the best out of them, and lead from the front. He was a true leader and a Military Genius. But like everything in life.... all things come to an end..!
I am British and proud of my Country..yet take my hat off to Napolean, and every other general who has contributed to the whole 'Art of War' concept, regardless of country of origin.
Still to this day we study there stratergies and way of thinking, implement and adapt it in todays conflicts.

Hitler was nothing like Napolean.

Ironduke

18 Oct 07,, 10:58

Hitler was that "little Bohemian corporal", as a member of the German General Staff whose name I can't remember called him. Blitzkrieg warfare was largely invented by Guderian. Hitler had the luck of better strategists when the war broke out.

Even Wellington when asked who the greatest general was said: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."

Simullacrum

18 Oct 07,, 11:06

Hitler was that "little Bohemian corporal", as a member of the German General Staff whose name I can't remember called him."

It was Von Hindenburg.

astralis

18 Oct 07,, 16:21

napoleon was an amazing tactician (if not that great of a strategist) and an enlightened despot.

hitler was a murderous jumped-up washout, whose best trait was that of a rabble-rouser. as ironduke said, he was blessed by having good generals.

Ironduke

23 Oct 07,, 11:45

It was Von Hindenburg.
Heh, I was a bit off... he was a member of the General Staff way before he said that.

as ironduke said, he was blessed by having good generals.
And vice versa, those good generals being cursed by Hitler. ;)

Ironduke

30 Oct 07,, 10:15

A british defeat may have Napoleon trying to land in Britain, or maybe not.
Napoleon would have had a better chance taking over England by digging under the Channel than landing an army on the island. It just wasn't going to happen.

Blackleaf

06 Mar 08,, 16:20

Okay I am new here I know but I want to see where this will lead. I know that there have been many tremendous and hard fought battles in Western history, but thtere are not many that can honestly be considered to be a harbinger of future global developments. Having said that and keeping in mind the future GLOBAL implications that it had, what would the world be like today if England had gotten sternly defeated at the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805 ?

If Britain had got beaten then the British would probably be speaking French now, be eating slimy amphibians and gastropods smeared in garlic, be rude to foreigners, always be gloomy and sulky, and panic whenever they hear a German accent or catch a wiff of sauerkraut.

Zapfenstreich

07 Mar 08,, 15:25

As much as the Brits like to put the importance Trafalgar, the French was in no position to land an invading army, at least not one that could have conquer the British Isles.

And Napoleon met his doom at Moscow which was the cause of his exile.

Seriously, nothing. Wellington would have still met Napoleon at Waterloo.

Not true. The French had a large army waiting at Boulogne, ready to go across the channel. The British army was tiny at this time and would have been defeated quite easily.

Trafalgar saved Britain - no doubt about it.

Officer of Engineers

07 Mar 08,, 15:47

I repeat. The French were in no position to land an invading army.

Zapfenstreich

07 Mar 08,, 16:40

I repeat. The French were in no position to land an invading army.

Kindly explain why? They had plenty of barges, and had they defeated Nelson, little opposition from the sea. What would stop them? The wind?

Officer of Engineers

07 Mar 08,, 17:48

How about fresh water?

T_igger_cs_30

07 Mar 08,, 17:58

How about fresh water?

Just a side bar Sir, .........fresh water is still a problem in France :biggrin:

dave lukins

07 Mar 08,, 18:19

Not true. The French had a large army waiting at Boulogne, ready to go across the channel. The British army was tiny at this time and would have been defeated quite easily.

Trafalgar saved Britain - no doubt about it.

Since when do we need a big Army to beat anyone;) We would have stopped for a tad of petit dejourner and home by diner:))
Yes your right, Trafalgar was our saviour

Officer of Engineers

07 Mar 08,, 18:34

Simply put, can anyone see the French trying to land regiments on the beaches and somehow get the time to properly mass them before British canons wipe them from the face of the earth?

Can anyone even imagine what an opposed landing during that era would be like? There is a reason why the British preferred to knock out Quebec on the Plains of Abraham instead of storming ashore.

Zapfenstreich

07 Mar 08,, 20:43

Simply put, can anyone see the French trying to land regiments on the beaches and somehow get the time to properly mass them before British canons wipe them from the face of the earth?

Can anyone even imagine what an opposed landing during that era would be like? There is a reason why the British preferred to knock out Quebec on the Plains of Abraham instead of storming ashore.

The French would not have chosen a strongly defended area for the landing. Besides, with the whole French and Spanish navy, they could have easily neutralised any shore batteries. Britain was not prepared to meet an invasion in 1805, this is why what Nelson did was so crucial.

And I don't understand your point about fresh water. :confused: This never stopped the French invasion of any other country. There are rivers in England, believe it or not! :))

Officer of Engineers

07 Mar 08,, 21:42

The French would not have chosen a strongly defended area for the landing. Besides, with the whole French and Spanish navy, they could have easily neutralised any shore batteries. Britain was not prepared to meet an invasion in 1805, this is why what Nelson did was so crucial.

Just like SEALION, there are only so many places you can land an invasion force and British guns don't have to hit the ships, just the immediate shoreline, and therefore stay out of range of ship borned guns. Also, ground based guns far outrange ship borned guns of the era, or rather far more accurate. Try firing a shotgun on land and on a boat.

You're also subscribing to the theory that Nelson's force would be completely annihilated with no survivors. I don't subscribe to that thought. Just like there were French survivors, there would also be a surviving Royal Naval Force.

And I don't understand your point about fresh water. :confused: This never stopped the French invasion of any other country. There are rivers in England, believe it or not! :))

As they say, amateurs think tactics and strategy, professionals think logistics. Unless you're planning the French to drink from the Channel, your 2nd landing wave got to be water and resupply. How many waves did we land on D-Day.

TopHatter

10 Mar 08,, 00:58

Yes your right, Trafalgar was our saviour

How so? :confused:

Napoleon had called off the invasion even before "England expects..." was hoisted on HMS Victory

vannor

11 Mar 08,, 20:35

Hello,
If, we are presuming that Trafalgar did not happen. I believe Napoleonic France could not have invaded England, as the royal navy would defend all transport lanes to England.
If , on the other hand we are presuming that Trafalgar is "reversed" and is a titanic victory for Bonaparte with all or most of the royal navy sunk or captured. I submit that Napoleon ( being an admited military genius ) would subjugate great Britain within one year if not sooner. The effects of losing
the main British war fleet would require peace talks. This age was not an age of "Total War" and negotiated treaties were very common.

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.

TopHatter

12 Mar 08,, 01:03

If, we are presuming that Trafalgar did not happen. I believe Napoleonic France could not have invaded England, as the royal navy would defend all transport lanes to England. But again, Trafalgar or no Trafalgar, Napoleon had already given up on invading England before the battle was even joined.

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.
You're fine.
Although you might want to hop over to the Introductions forum and letting everybody know who you are. :)

Officer of Engineers

12 Mar 08,, 05:33

I hope that my inexperiance with is communication format does not insult or otherwise anger any other poster.None taken but here are a few points of brain fodder for you.

Did Napoleon had a clue about amphibious assault?

There were two great British Commanders in the Napoleonic Wars. One was Nelson. The other was Wellington. Would you explain to me why Wellington would give up just because Nelson lost?

Would you care to cite me a single scenario where the British would not have local superiority?

I'm not taken insult but trying to provide you with food for thought.

glyn

12 Mar 08,, 11:03

The British standing Army was not huge, but every county had a large number of militias who were well equipped and trained. They also had the advantage of knowing their home turf.

vannor

13 Mar 08,, 00:46

To TopHatter:
You are of course correct. Napoleon had given up on an invasion of England before Trafalgar.
If, we assume a catastrophic reversal the opportunistic nature of the emperor would bring direct action back on the table.

To Officer of Engineers:
I believe the emperor did understand( or at least realize the consequences) of early th century naval landings. This was why He(Napoleon) had called off the landings before Tralfalgar.
As to Wellington giving up,... the less said about that the better.
I would still put forth that Britania Ruler of the Ocean bereft of Her pride and joy, surrounded by a despised new Spanish armada and a terrifying fleet of French republicans(replete with guillotines) would certainly bring the British ti the negotiating table.
I believe that the very nature of "the offense" is superiority on a local level. This does not mean success on a strategic or even a tactical level.

So, to be specific,
French landing in Ireland.
or Scotland.
Strangulation of the U.K. through blockade
an unopposed raid developed to full scale landings

Johnny W

13 Jun 08,, 18:24

I don't know what the Royal Navy's exact order of Battle was, but I don't think Nelson had the whole Fleet with him. They would have recalled all British ships in the Atlantic to defend the Island, including those on North American station. That would have made a relatively impressive fleet. The only question would be if it could return in time to stop an invasion (if Napoleon had chosen to invade England).

Skywatcher

13 Jun 08,, 19:58

Wouldn't Napoleon also have to worry about his other fronts while investing a huge portion of his resources trying to subdue the British Isles?

Austria and Prussia could decide to attack him again.

zraver

14 Jun 08,, 09:21

I don't know what the Royal Navy's exact order of Battle was, but I don't think Nelson had the whole Fleet with him. They would have recalled all British ships in the Atlantic to defend the Island, including those on North American station. That would have made a relatively impressive fleet. The only question would be if it could return in time to stop an invasion (if Napoleon had chosen to invade England).

Most of what could have been called back would have been Frigate sized or smaller. Nelson sailed with the ships of the line, nominally a reserve fleet due to the cost of the battleships. IIRc he had 25-27 such ships. So a defeat at Trafalgar would have cost England dearly in terms of treasure and sailors, but ironically not hit the cream of the Royal Navy's professionals who were in the Frigates.

The being said, the loss of much of the battle line might well have bankrupted Britain if she tried to rebuild to many ships, and forced her into a crewing situation where she was actually out crewed by the French/Spanish. Not to mention the hit her merchant marine would have taken by a double levy to crew the original and new battle fleets. The RN was always short of able bodied men, in fact impressment was one reason the US got sucked into the war of 1812.

The loss of sailors and treasure might have forced Britain to sue for peace or risk losing her colonies. if Brtain does bow out then czar Aleksander is never going to risk Napoleon's wrath and there is no Moscow and France sits on a united Europe until, and only until the nationalist forces the French Revolution unleashed rip the French Empire apart.

Oscar

14 Jun 08,, 14:54

The French navy was a joke during the imperial and revolutionnary wars, compared to what it was in the 1780's. Napoleon wasn't interested in the domination of the oceans and Europe has always claimed all his attention. That's why we sold Louisiana.

Furthermore the navy officer corps of the "Royale" was crippled by desertion and emigration. Unlike the land officers the marine was still deeply monarchist when the revolution broke out. So, of course the French navy was not a threat for the British colonies.

Blademaster

14 Jun 08,, 17:51

I do know for one thing, if Britain had lost, she wouldn't have been able to keep India for that long nor invaded the entire subcontinent.

Officer of Engineers

14 Jun 08,, 18:18

How Hitesh? Remember how the Brits did it - through Indian disunity and it was a gradual thing. I don't think the East India Company set out in mind to conquer the subcontinent. They were there at first to make a buck. If they lost at Trafalgar, would the EIC still not form to make a buck in India?

And British troops were around 100,000. That kind of numbers was never possible to hold India without Indian concent. Would the Brits be less opportunistic with fewer troops?

Blademaster

15 Jun 08,, 00:56

Don't forget the First War war for Indian Independence a.k.a. the 1857 Sepoy's Mutiny. If it wasn't for the reinforcements from Britain and from Middle East, Britain would have lost.

Officer of Engineers

15 Jun 08,, 01:33

Again, how? Napoleon's victory does not mean the British Empire falls.

Blademaster

15 Jun 08,, 03:26

Britain's navy won't dominate the seas anymore. Moreover, the French had a strong position in India right at the onset of the 1800s. It was only after the defeat at Trafalgar that the French's position in India became untenable.

Officer of Engineers

15 Jun 08,, 03:57

Britain's navy won't dominate the seas anymore.But how would that affect India? India didn't have a navy. And once a peace is signed, the RN is free to roam the colonies again.

Moreover, the French had a strong position in India right at the onset of the 1800s. It was only after the defeat at Trafalgar that the French's position in India became untenable.So you would be speaking French instead of English?

Blademaster

15 Jun 08,, 04:48

But how would that affect India? India didn't have a navy. And once a peace is signed, the RN is free to roam the colonies again.

Yes and no. There was one kingdom that was closely allied with the French against the British. It was a very large kingdom. I think it was the Madras Confederacy or something like that.

So you would be speaking French instead of English?

Not necessarily, the French's position may be strong but not that strong as the British was. What I am trying to say is that the British will not be in the position that it was in when it was trying to take over India. The French didn't have the British entrepunial skills or the political acumen. If the British had lost at Trafalgar, it couldn't use its naval power against a French ally.

Officer of Engineers

15 Jun 08,, 05:00

Question. Would the EIC still be making a buck?

Blademaster

15 Jun 08,, 05:11

I dunno. EIC only got involved when the kings looked at EIC's coffers and wanted more money to protect EIC. EIC told them to **** off and hired their own mercenary armies and brought the Navy under the guise of EIC merchant trading enterprise. Those ships are what gave the EIC power and it allowed them to bypass certain kingdoms. Then EIC started bringing and hiring experience soldiers and officers from British Army.

However the loss at Trafalgar would have seriously weaken their bargaining power position since the French would be getting their own cut. Remember after the loss of Trafalgar, the French basically had to give up their money making enterprises in India to the British, thereby strengthening the British hand.

A modern analogy would help. Think of Kim Senior playing off Soviets against China while maintaining his own base.

dave lukins

15 Jun 08,, 09:16

Yes and no. There was one kingdom that was closely allied with the French against the British. It was a very large kingdom. I think it was the Madras Confederacy or something like that.

1818 Britain defeated the Marathas and became the effective rulers of India

dave lukins

15 Jun 08,, 09:25

And British troops were around 100,000. That kind of numbers was never possible to hold India without Indian concent. Would the Brits be less opportunistic with fewer troops?

In 1803 it was the Mughal emperor himself who accepted British protection.

Knaur Amarsh

15 Jun 08,, 09:29

In 1803 it was the Mughal emperor himself who accepted British protection.

Around that time,the Mughal "empire"was effectively restricted to Delhi

Ray

15 Jun 08,, 10:12

Perish the thought . I would have prefered the Krauts any time to the frogs :mad:

Vich vud haf us all speakin like ziss ,

like when a Brit boat was going through the Keil canal and started to sink , the captain called for help saying

we are sinking, we are sinking .

The German coastguard came back saying ,,,Ja Ja ok , vot are you sinking about .:))

You nasty little fellow!

You had me in splits! ;))

Fery bat!

Ray

15 Jun 08,, 10:15

The defeat of the French in Europe had it repercussions in India.

Dupleix, the French General, was riding high in India. If the French had won in Europe, India would be French speaking!

Inky pinky Parlez vous!! ;)

Oscar

15 Jun 08,, 11:03

The defeat of the French in Europe had it repercussions in India.

Dupleix, the French General, was riding high in India. If the French had won in Europe, India would be French speaking!

Inky pinky Parlez vous!! ;)

You're mixing things. We lost definitively in India after the Seven Year's war (1756-1763) the French presence in India before the Revolution was merely anecdotical.

tankie

15 Jun 08,, 13:07

You nasty little fellow!

You had me in splits! ;))

Fery bat!

Sank you wery much ?

Tarek posted a you tube on that subject after i posted it , and its very good to watch ,, Ja very funny . :))

Ray

16 Jun 08,, 18:05

Zat is gut neyoos.

tankie

17 Jun 08,, 05:12

Zat is gut neyoos.

Ja

Deltacamelately

17 Jun 08,, 12:20

The defeat of the French in Europe had it repercussions in India.

Dupleix, the French General, was riding high in India. If the French had won in Europe, India would be French speaking!

Inky pinky Parlez vous!! ;)
Thank God the Brits didn't lose.
I would have hated to post in the WAB in French.
As of now, 50% of my posts make sense,
had I been posting in French, I guess 90% of the posts
would have sounded crap to you all.:eek:
However, I think the Col would still understand my posts.:))

Indeed. We can always order the Major to present himself dressed to our breakfast table.

Deltacamelately

21 Jun 08,, 10:54

Delta,

Careful! :))
Sir, I wrote that under a hardened bunker. Who wants to take chances against a Seasoned adversary.:biggrin:

dave lukins

22 Jun 08,, 19:20

Sir, I wrote that under a hardened bunker. Who wants to take chances against a Seasoned adversary.:biggrin:

Are you calling our Brigadier Salt and Pepper:))

Deltacamelately

23 Jun 08,, 10:46

Are you calling our Brigadier Salt and Pepper:))
Dear Dave,
I was referring to the Cols vintage.;)

dave lukins

23 Jun 08,, 16:41

Dear Dave,
I was referring to the Cols vintage.;)

Like a good wine let's hope he ages gracefully:)

tankie

24 Jun 08,, 06:16

Like a good wine let's hope he ages gracefully:)

Mine dont get the chance to :))

Elbmek

27 Jun 08,, 05:59

Mine dont get the chance to :))Sarsons? ;)

snapper

15 Aug 08,, 13:38

Defeat at Trafalgar does not mean that England would have been defeated. Until England was completely obliterated as a maritime power, which would have meant occupation, it is likely that any losses at a defeat would have been made good within a relatively short period. If France had occupied England it is hard to see that there would have been sufficient troops for the Russian to take place. My answer then is that losing Trafalgar would not have meant that Napoleon would have been victorious and I think this is what you are realy hinting at.

Elbmek

15 Aug 08,, 13:53

Losing a battle does not mean losing a war.

GB in the years 39-42 proved this. We were on the backfoot, losing territory and battles left right and centre. The main reason for this was due to pacifist politicians who declared that WW1 would never happen again and the subsequent devaluation of armed forces and lack of technological advances.

Then the balance was restored with the official arrival of the Americans and our island became a giant aircraft carrier. Thousands of Americans had already joined the British Forces, but unofficially. Also the removal of several generals who still "thought on cavalry lines" were removed/replaced.

From 42 onwards, in both the Pacific and Europe as well as the Atlantic, things finally swung around and the rest, as they say, is history.